| Author |
Message |
    
Antipodi
Starlite Member
Username: Antipodi
| | Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 01:34 am: | 
|
Dear fellow poets
we write many poems that express the way we feel about our world and its predicament well here is a chance for ALL to make a small but significant difference ..below is a copy of an email sent to me by the group approaching the UN for proper steps to eradicate Global Warming ..Please Please go to the site and sign it if not for us but for our childrens sake
"It's time for a new Kyoto Protocol to address the
growing concerns of global climate change.
And for the new Kyoto Protocol to work, every country
in the world must come together to address climate
change >>
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFm6m/zJaE/bfB5E
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change meets again in June to work toward a framework
for December's critical Copenhagen Climate Conference.
With the rising threat of global warming, it's critical
that the new treaty includes strong caps on carbon
emissions.
But to make it a global solution, we need to ensure
the agreement also includes funding to help developing
countries adapt to climate change. We must include the
world's poor, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, because
the consequences of global warming will
disproportionately hit Africa's poor -- even though the
crisis is clearly not of their making.
Rich countries have an obligation to immediately curb
greenhouse gas emissions and help Africa avoid the
worst effects of climate change. Yvo de Boer, the
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, is chairing the next
round of negotiations in June.
Ask Secretary de Boer to ensure the proper funding for
all countries suffering the effects of climate change >>
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFm6m/zJaE/bfB5E
Thank you,
LiAnna
Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team
P.S. Please encourage your friends to sign, too!"
thankyou for signing and reading this |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 09:21 am: |
|
Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill
by William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Ben Lieberman
WebMemo #2450
Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) modified their global warming proposal from the draft version published on March 31. For the most part, the changes focused on the distribution of the allowance revenue--the equivalent of tax revenue.
There was also a slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020, which resulted in a marginally lower economic impact. However, the new distribution of allowances created a less efficient pattern of government expenditures and more than offset the gain from the lower cap for 2020.
The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:
Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.
Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn toward big government.
Ultimately, this bill would result in government-set caps on energy use that damage the economy and hobble growth--the very growth that supports investment and innovation. Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:
Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion;
Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500; and
Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.
Waxman-Markey Basics
The bill discloses a basic two-pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The first prong is a set of mandates forcing efficiencies independent of any cost-benefit calculations on the part of industry or consumers. These mandates include a requirement for low-carbon motor fuels and a tenfold increase in the production of electricity from renewable sources.
The second prong is cap and trade. With cap and trade, absolute limits on total emissions of greenhouse gases are established. Before those in a covered sector can emit a greenhouse gas, they need to have the ration coupons (also known as pollution permits or allowances) for each ton emitted. Because the ration coupons will have a value, and therefore a cost, cap and trade becomes a tax on fossil fuels and the energy they generate.
The intent of cap and trade is to impose a cost on CO2 and allow businesses and consumers to adapt as well as they can to this new cost. The mandates of the first parts of Waxman-Markey are counterproductive because they force choices on the economy that might not be the most efficient and inexpensive ways to cut CO2. That said, this paper's analysis looks at only the cost of a simple cap-and-trade approach. Consequently, the economic impact estimates reported here will likely be lower than the economic cost of cap and trade hobbled further by mandates.
Baseline Assumptions
To establish a benchmark against which to measure the impact of Waxman-Markey, this paper assumes an economic recovery from the current recession and the subsequent smooth type of economic growth that all major economic forecasts must make. A more rapid economic recovery would make the costs of meeting the CO2 restrictions even greater.
What Is in the Baseline? The baseline energy projections come from IHS Global Insight's latest U.S. Energy Outlook.[1] The highly respected and widely used Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic model was used to prepare the estimates employed in this paper as well as data from Global Insight's November 2008 long-term model, which makes economic forecasts through 2038. Use of the November 2008 macroeconomic model aligned this paper's economic forecasting with Global Insight's October 2008 energy baseline.[2] The baseline assumptions include:
A near doubling of light-vehicle fuel efficiency by 2030;
Non-hydro renewable electricity reaching 17 percent by 2030--a more than fivefold increase; and
36 billion gallons per year of ethanol production, with 20 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol.
Though these goals and mandates will be costly to meet (if even they can be met), the costs will occur with or without Waxman-Markey. Therefore, these costs are not counted in this paper's economic impacts of the Waxman-Markey bill.
Addressing Offsets. Waxman-Markey provides emitters with an option to substitute some allowances with certified CO2 reductions by other emitters that are not covered by emissions caps. These offsets can be purchased from domestic or international sources. On the surface, Waxman-Markey's treatment of offsets is generous to the point of eliminating constraints on fossil-fuel CO2 for decades. However, closer examination reveals multiple catches, costs, and impossibilities.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that domestic offsets simply do not exist anywhere near the magnitude nominally allowed by Waxman-Markey.[3] Driven, perhaps, by the concern that existing offset programs suffer from fraud, Waxman-Markey includes significant hurdles for those wishing to use offsets.[4] The EPA administrator "may at any time, by rule, remove a project type from the list." Further, the administrator shall establish "policies to assign liability and responsibility for mitigating and fully compensating for reversals." That is, using an offset may leave a firm with an open-ended liability. Finally, offsets require 1.25 tons of CO2 reduction for each ton of offset credit.
This analysis assumes that allowances will increase the effective CO2 caps by 15 percent. Recent prices of offsets for the Kyoto program have been between 10 and 15 euros per ton. Given the exchange rate, discount (the 1.25 ton reduction per ton of credit), and likely increase in demand, the initial price of $20 per ton is conservative. After the first five years, this price increases by the expected rate of inflation.
Carbon Capture and Storage. One hope for those who want to see continued access to U.S. coal reserves is carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS attempts to remove CO2 from the effluent before emission. This captured CO2 would be compressed into liquid form and injected into deep saline aquifers and deep ocean waters or used for enhanced oil recovery.
Serious obstacles to large-scale commercial deployment of CCS have yet to be overcome. CCS requires roughly one-third more energy to generate electricity than processes without CCS. Viable commercial CCS does not yet exist, though the bill does provide funding for three commercial-scale pilot projects. Along with the technological challenges, a massive pipeline system must be created virtually from scratch. But it is the political and environmental obstacles that may prove most daunting. CCS must be proven to be effective in preventing moderate leaks over long periods of time. In addition, community concern with the possibility of catastrophic local release of large quantities of CO2 could provide the ubiquitous not-in-my-backyard opposition that bedevils many waste disposal problems.
This paper's analysis of Waxman-Markey assumes that CCS will not be available in significant quantities for the years analyzed.
Renewable Energy Goals. The renewable energy targets already established by current laws will be challenging to meet. This paper assumes no additional renewable energy beyond these significant baseline increases of 36 billion gallons of renewable motor fuels and the existing state-level renewable electricity requirements. The current baseline projects 18.3 gigawatts of increased nuclear power capacity. The history of nuclear construction in the 1960s through the 1980s shows that a much more aggressive nuclear build-out is technologically possible, but political and other factors make the likelihood of a "nuclear renaissance" highly uncertain. Therefore, this study assumes no additional nuclear capacity beyond the baseline increase.
Results of The Heritage Foundation's Analysis
It is no surprise that the economy responds to cap and trade as it would to an energy crisis. The price on carbon emissions forces energy cuts across the economy, since non-carbon energy sources cannot replace fossil fuels quickly enough. Energy prices rise; income and employment drop.
The current recession diminishes near-term projections for aggregate economic activity. As this activity drops, so does energy use. Though a recession is bad news, it has the effect of moving the economy closer to the energy cuts needed to meet the emissions targets. Nevertheless, the income (GDP) losses are nearly $200 billion out of the gate and average over $380 billion per year. As the economy recovers and the caps tighten, the detrimental effect of cap and trade gets more and more severe. In the worst years, GDP losses exceed $700 billion per year.
Waxman-Markey will cause higher energy costs to spread throughout the economy as producers everywhere try to cover their higher production costs by raising their product prices. Consumers will be most directly affected by rising energy bills. Even after adjusting for inflation, gasoline prices will rise 74 percent over the 2035 baseline price. Compared to the baseline, residential natural gas consumers will see their inflation-adjusted price rise by 55 percent. Because of its reliance on coal, the cost of electricity will rise by 90 percent--again after adjusting for inflation and in addition to what the price would have been anyway in 2035.
As President Obama pointed out, cap and trade can work only when energy prices "skyrocket." To force consumer-energy cutbacks, the prices need to rise to painful levels. This paper's analysis shows the results of this strategy. By 2035:
The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.
Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,200 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $7,500 more between 2012 and 2035.
In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $22,800 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment will take a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 1,105,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception: Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
Is It Worth It?
Is all of this economic pain justified by gains against global warming? Waxman-Markey raises energy prices by 55-90 percent. These higher energy prices push unemployment up by 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peaks over 2,479,000. In aggregate, GDP drops by over $9.6 trillion. The next generation will inherit a federal debt pumped up by $29,150 per person. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[5]
The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is $1,500 per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. Furthermore, the recently proposed modifications to Waxman-Markey only make these problems worse: By devising a less-efficient pattern of government expenditures, this new draft would more than offset the gains from the proposed slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020.
And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable.
William W. Beach is Director of, David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change in, and Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, and Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
|
Antipodi
Starlite Member
Username: Antipodi
| | Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 02:41 pm: |
|
Sadly its the devil if yah do or the devil if yah dont but what kinda of a mess are we leaving for future generations if any the way we are going ..its terrible nobody might have a job but without decent air to breathe we mightn't have a life |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 08:53 pm: |
|
It wouldn't be so bad if the current administration had a clue on anything.Al Gore left office as VP with 2 million dollars.He now has over 100 million.He got together with some junk science people and created a book about Global Warming.The left immediately saw this as a good money making crisis and jumped on board.
They are ripping this country to shreds.They gave the Saudis the info on how to build nuclear power,yet they wont let us do it,or drill for oil,or use coal.SO the price of everything will be controlled by the most corrupt government in the world.
I don't see him gettin re-elected without a revolution.
|
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 07:39 am: |
|
Hey BB, if this country is so bad. . .have you considered relocating maybe?. . .I thought not.
-02L
_________________________________________________
There's a little black spot on the sun today. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hey 2Litre,if I didn't care about my country,I wouldn't be involved in trying to stop the maniacs in Washington.
Obviously you are a CNN addict and believe what ever they tell you.I have some swamp land in Arizona ,if you are interested.
"Save the Planet" is the rallying cry that justifies nearly any intrusion by Goevernment into the life of the individual.The individual,after all,is expendable"!!
Go have another red bull,Tim... BB |
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - 12:38 pm: |
|
The only maniacs I see anymore are the ones whining and complaining one party has total control. Go back eight years ago when the other side had total control and tell me what you thought about the ousted party yelling and screaming these same things you are now? As an independant voter, I really find it extremly humorous how each side whines about the same thing when not in power.
No, I do not watch CNN, I watch CNBC and FOX as well as CNBC and FOX Business channels.
What I have found is the praise found on FOX eight years ago for bush is now on CNBC for obama.
The whining and complaining on CNBC eight years ago in protest of bush is now on FOX in protest of obama.
Fasinating, isn't it?
I enjoy BOTH business channels though.
The individual is not expendable, however, no one enjoys an individual hell bent on spreading outragious BS either.
That goes for both sides.
Stop drinking red bull BB my friend, and return to the realm of common sense.
I found scotch really helps.
-02L |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - 06:47 pm: |
|
What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation
Yesterday the White House release a report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, finding that “Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told The Hill, “The findings released today add urgency to the growing momentum in Congress for legislation that cuts global warming pollution.” Do they really? Is there any evidence in the report that global warming legislation will prevent any of the changes the report identifies? Is there any evidence in the report that the costs of global warming legislation will be offset by its benefits? No and no.
Recent Entries
Top Ten Wasteful Stimulus Projects
Cash for Clunkers Should be Called Cash for Auto Industry
House Armed Services Committee Says No to Missile Defense Interceptors
For Those Unemployed from Cap and Trade, Help is on the Way…For 1.5 % of You
Obama and Iran: The Kid Gloves Must Come Off
The Obama administration climate report identifies a number of impacts from global warming including “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level”; “increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes”; and increased “heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents.” These are all bad. But how bad? The report does not put a price tag on any of these maladies. But the report does identify some benefits from global warming including “thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons”, and “earlier snowmelt.” As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jim Manzi has noted the U.S. should not expect any net economic damage from global warming before 2100. So the net threat for the United States from global warming over the next 90 years is essentially zero.
Now how about the threat from global warming legislation? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the leading global warming legislation in Congress, the Waxman-Markey bill, would cause a typical U.S. household to consume about $160 less per year than it otherwise would, and about $1,100 less per year by 2050. But the EPA study is wildly unrealistic. First, the EPA assumes a doubling of nuclear power by 2035. But nothing in Waxman-Markey changes the regulatory framework that has strangled the U.S. nuclear industry for the past 30 years. Second, it assumes that all revenue collected by the federal government from Waxman-Markey will be immediately returned to taxpayers through rebates or lowered taxes. This is a nice sentiment, but it does not reflect the reality of what is actually in the Waxman-Markey bill. Finally, it assumes that large numbers of foreign offsets will be available for purchase; without these, costs would be far higher.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has conducted a much more realistic cost estimate for Waxman-Markey and found that by 2035 global warming legislation would inflict real GDP losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241, and destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average.
The American people should not allow the federal government to get away with incomplete reports designed to scare them in to action. The American people deserve real cost-benefit analysis of global warming legislation that clearly lays out what the net economic consequences action and inaction would be. The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States is not that study.
QUICK HITS
The lead sponsor of the Inspectors General Act of 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said yesterday that President Barack Obama did not follow the law when he fired Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin after a Walpin investigation forced Obama supporter Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson to repay nearly $424,000 to the federal government.
According to Senate Finance Committee aides, a yet unreleased Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health care plan will cost $1.6 trillion over ten years and leave 15 million Americans without health insurance.
Baucus is also floating a plan to try and pay for his plan by taxing employer-sponsored health insurance, but also exempting policies bargained under current union contracts.
President Obama will announce today that he will extend benefits to same-sex partners for all federal employees.
According to Gallup 73% of Americans say they are confident in doctors to recommend the right thing for reforming the U.S. healthcare system, compared to only 58% who say the same thing about President Obama.
|
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 12:37 pm: |
|
I don't know which one I enjoy controling my health care more, the government or the insurance companys. My wife's brother was hospitalized for a bursted appendix in 2007.
The wonderful insurance company said that he had to go home three days after the opperation.
the doctors pleaded with them to let him stay longer, because he was in no condition to go home.
The insurance company did not relent, and forced him to check out.
while at home he nearly died from complications that the doctors warned would happen.
Honest to God true story sir bubs.
so answer me this: which do YOU want to guard the hen house, the fox or the bear? Either way, the chickens are doomed.
-Two Litre
_________________________________________________
There's a little black spot on the sun today. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Thursday, July 02, 2009 - 07:41 pm: |
|
If you let the government control every damn aspect of your life,you may as well move to Russia.They are already for this cap and trade fiasco and taxing carbon dioxide users...that would be us Tim. We exhale carbon dioxide.You will be making your deliveries on a bicycle.Can't be polluting the invironment with your truck.Imagine the guy in the "Texas Chain Saw Massacre".That's our government. |
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 - 05:56 pm: |
|
Sorry sir Bubs, don't share your conviction. . .I'll believe it when I see it. . . . .I say that alot when it comes to our wonderful government.
-Two Litre.
_________________________________________________
There's a little black spot on the sun today. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:47 am: |
|
Hey guess what...they are actually saying this carbon tax wont work...because the rest of the world is not interested in doing it either.
Hallelujah..BB |
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 05:27 pm: |
|
See. . . .all that whining and moaning for nothing.
-02L
_________________________________________________
There's a little black spot on the sun today. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Inhale more diesel fumes,you need to clear your mind... |
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 10:37 am: |
|
Ok. . .As soon as you stop being a puppet and believing all the stories your party is feeding you. Cut the strings my friend before they choke you.
-02L
_________________________________________________
There's a little black spot on the sun today. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 10:01 pm: |
|
My party? There are no more party's Tim.We are now a communist nation.Chew on that for awhile.The two party system will no longer exist!!Obama has killed it. |
02l
Starlite Member
Username: 02l
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 10:24 am: |
|
Communist Nation. . . .I didn't know you moved to China sir bubs, I see you finally took my advice and moved out of this country. . . . . .or is it North Korea, they are the only communist countries still in existance.
This country is not communist. . . .the fact is your fine Republicians screwed up and lost all their power. . . . .so I would have to say your wonderful Republician party killed itself. . . . .sorry dude. |
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 09:44 pm: |
|
Tim,you are full of goose crap and pigeon toes.
Get ready for your recognition implant.I bet your little wienie dogs already have them.Go to sleep Komrade... |
|
